The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

ok So I'm sure most of you know about Vlad The Impaler. I'd like your opinion as to wheather you think he is genious or insane. Please explain why you think what you think.

I am doing a report on him so any links would be appreciated. =D

ty

According to folklore as well as history, Vlad was not as insane as you would think. He was actually a hero to his people. His methods may have been a bit on the unorthodox side, but they worked. To strike fear into your enemy is a very good tactic. But, as a catch 22, this worked for both the positive and negative as the impalment on the spikes was the best war strategy every concocted back in that area of time. He feasted before his enemies and did dip bread onto their blood as a symbol of taking their strength from them. Much like that of the Native Americans and their ritual hunts.

The positive side? The accomplishment of winning a battle between nations and inturn making a hero status out of him through his people.

The negative? The ideas of modern society creating for him, naming him a lunatic, vampire, mentally insane, etc.

His family were of a warriors breed. A long line of warriors. They were known as Dragons. Which is where Bram Stoke got his idea from. Bram Stokers: Dracula had a small piece of the actual history in the beginning of the movie when young Harker first enters Castle Dracula. The Scene where Vlad threatens Harker with a sword.

we have to remember that vlad was kept as a prisoner of the turks during his childhood, and they had a way of working on someones nerves. we know he was threatened with death regularly during his childhood, and there is a high likely hood that he was raped as well (as was the turkish custom of the time).
this would not have sat well inside his skull, and add to it the fact that his father was betrayed by the boyars (the nobles) and killed, and you begin to see some serious mental problems developing.

now it is true that the man was a fine warrior. he used terror tactics and scorched earth policy ahead of the turkish army that the russians would have recognized during the german invasion of 1941. he fought well, and valiently, but just did not have the numbers needed to fight the turkish hord, and didnt have the statemanship to form meaningful alliances. add to that the media of the time seemed to have a mission to blacken his name, and you begin to see why many of the perceptions of the time persist to this day.

as to links, id say stay away from wikipedia, but there are many many fine sites out there.
~W~

You can't really classify Vlad Tepes as insane. What he did was what he thought was best to his own interests. I find that he was more or less a genious in the tactics he used much as Adolf Hitler was in that he used.

Tepes' actions certainly did a good job of frightening his enemies and his subjects so that they remained loyal for a long time.

From having the impaled armies of the Turks set on display to burning a whole "room" of people alive, he kept his little "empire" in the wraps.

He knew how to get things done -- simple as.

ive studied alot of history, and i think vlad dracula was far more intelligent than adolf hitler. hitler may have been a fine rabble rouser, but lacked any real intellect. i could give prolly a hundred examples of true stupidity there, but this isnt the place for it.

dracula on the other hand seems to have been made into more of a monster than he was. i dont think he was a genius, but he was a bright boy, and he did understand alot of psychology.

anyway, just my couple of drachma...your milage may vary.
~Wolf~

i believe he was true genieus and insane for the revenge that he sought out for all that he been thru there is a very fine line between genieus and insanity ...and i believe that insanity can lead to genieus ideas

he beat the turks.he used a terror tactic which worked.they had one of the the best armys in the world .if they where not stopped by vlad tepes,the king of poland and the knights of malta they would have ruled all of europe.

Genious !

his peoples live in peace, (less crime)
beside only criminal and bad guy get punish.
am not gonna tell you the whole history,
because i know you can google it.

but insane is not Vlad.

Sounds like a bit of both. I mean, genius to think of it, insane to actually do it. I dunno...sometimes in war, a person must do what a person must do.

lets see....he slowed the turks, but did lose to them in the end.
then there is there are the things he did to his own people. i would put some of that into the insane catagory, but i dont know how much of it was anti vlad propaganda (and there was alot of that).
~W~

LordWolf -


But every ruler throughout time has done such a thing to their own people. Would you classify that all as insanity?

Interesting question. One would think that just from his childhood, the atrocities he has seen, must surely have made him insane. Do I believe that - no, perhaps it made him more prone to violence then others, but his methods were extremely effective!

I admire his passion, and wish it were still legal to impale people in the front yard! If I were permitted to impale just one or two idiots from my neighborhood in my yard - nobody would ever mess with me or my home or family again.

Although his methods were harsh, he brought peace to his people, was well-respected and even revered. He was definately not insane, he carefully thought out the most effective ways to get his point across. lol

every leader has done what he did?
no...i cant remember any head of state of this country that sanctioned boiling people alive and making others eat them. but again, that might...MIGHT have been just propaganda against him. there is really no way to know however.
~W~

"Vlad Tepes understood that it was very important for Valachia to protect its trade, so he made some special rules to protect his country against the German and Saxon importers who were unhappy with that. when the Saxons, (living in Transylvania), traded with Germany and Western Europe, they demonstrated negative feelings about Vlad Tepes."

From the following link:
www.mydracula.com

LordWolf -


No, but most if not every leader has done something like that in their rule. Not to mention the subjects doing so to the rulers if they go too far. It can't be all classified as insanity.

i think i read somewhere once that vlad is considered to be the very first serial killer for the sheer amount of murders he committed, both to his enemies and to his own people. i think he was an insane genius.

Definitely more genius than insane!Through what history says about him,he kept his people safe by just plain scaring the crap out of his enemies.Genius!

Many leaders of the past, while genuis in the military actions was later deemed insane. Vlad is loved by his people and is honored for the acts to free the people of terney. but we concider him insane,

Much like ghangis kahn and other leaders with their acts of cruelty to mortals.

either way he saved western civilization from being overrun by the turks.

I believe he was both insane and a genius at the same time . For one he saved his people from being conquerored by the Turks . Although I'm a Muslim I think he was a hero to his people . The Turkish empire was conqueroring lands at that time . Also the Turks although Muslims and knowing the rules of war in the Holy Quran , had a lot of ways on getting on peoples nerves . For one you were not suppose to threaten captives with death , or rape them . Him being a Christain a person of the book . Shouldve been let free and given the same rights as Muslims living under Islamic Law at that time . Not everyone wants to be Muslim or live under the Turkish empire . They werent following the rules of war . Why should Vlad ? When Turks came to his land after seeing the impaled bodies they paised Allah for being able to have such a foe in battle . And they left his country . Like the Turks Vlad was of a warrior family . War was there thing . Back in those days to survive you had to be cruel and ruthless . By doing this he saved his people and country . In war you have to do what you have to do . The ends justify the means . It took a genius to do what he did and not feel sorry for his enemies . It took pure insanity to carry it out . But people like Hitler and Vlad are not like us . They don't think about the morality of what they do . And they are highly intelligent . People like them rationalize things .

I think he's a genius,,,
But then I like the idea of impaling enemies on trees in my front yard,,,

Almost ALL genius' are insane. Vlad, Hitler, and Sigmund Freud the father of psychology.

His tactics were barbaric , but effective. I think one of his stories is kind of funny.

He invited some people to dinner. They complained about a "wretched" smell. He had them decapitated and their heads put on pyres around the dining table, and asked if it smelled better, up there.

He saved his people at the cost of his reputation. But there are alot of reports that his spirit still protects the castle. Along with female nosferatu which people consider to be his brides.

I would say neither. He was a man of his times... and they weren't pretty times.

I agree with imagesinwords. Though I will add to it. He went to extremes because he had to not because he wanted to. He was a man who did the "dirty work" no one else was strong enough to do. There is some mention in his families history of some mental illness

Personally I believe he was both. Genious for putting fear into all his enemies and keeping them back, but then I think he went to far and started believing his own tales.....ah, such is the life sometimes

i think its unfortunate how the word genius is thrown around. genius denotes intelligence....genghis khan...prolly genius.....c. julius caesar...absoluty genius....hitler...i really dont think so. just being responsible for much death does not make one a genius.
vlad dracula....i think he was very bright...but genius?
yeah...he saved his people...for a couple of years, by scaring the crap out of his enemies....as well as his own people. recall, according to the stories, he killed a large number of his own countrymen as well.
and no...he did not save his people from the turk...in 1476 he was defeated by them, and they went on to overrun wallachia, so he was only a stop gap measure.
a true genius perhaps could have found a way to turn the turkish tide in a more permanent manner. empire of the khans lasted....gaul remained roman for centuries after caesar was killed....but wallachia fell when dracula fell...much as the third reich died with hitler.

i only come to this conclusion from reading history...perhaps your milage will vary.
~Wolf~

LordWolf -


You forget there are many types of genius.

Hitler was very charismatic. He knew how to make people believe his ideals and he was a genius with war efforts. How do you think he could have taken over Germany? Along with much of Europe?

Vlad Tepes was the same way. He knew how to make people listen to him. He used scare tactics to make him seem more frightening and people were less likely to challenge him.

Vlad The Dracule sung in the folklure the farmers and villagers did praise his nice administration for centuries in which he defnded his territory well and did nice justice to them. He was cruel for the criminals who came from out side of his territory. He did this paling act to keep enemies and their spies away from his territory.

He was nice ruler and advance mind from that time other rulers. he did successful treaties and meets with other rulers. The Order the Dracule is to respect and notto fear for those citizen awared of his region.

He loved by the peepal of his region.

Lordwolf I see what you are saying yet I must go along with Mbk on this, there are many types of genious in society.

Manny of the names in these posts where in fact military genious and seem to know how to get the people to back them. Look at Vlad not only once but sevveral times over the course of his life got the people to back him and love him even today. the family was well revered to say.

Hitlerknew how to get the people in his time to throw themselves into a war for him. masterminds of history from Alexander the great, Ghangis kahn. all Military leaders of their time. yet in the times they were honered, yet today we call them barbarians or insane.

Yet many of our higher ups are doing the same, now and in the past for freedom or political views. Yet it has been here since man has battled over countries states and land.

It is a fine line to distinguish. War makes us all do things we would rather not. I agree about how civilization today has made many war leaders to be portrayed as insane. But tactics are tactics, and it is what won the war in the end.

MBK didst sayeth:


"LordWolf -
You forget there are many types of genius.
Hitler was very charismatic. He knew how to make people believe his ideals and he was a genius with war efforts. How do you think he could have taken over Germany? Along with much of Europe?
Vlad Tepes was the same way. He knew how to make people listen to him. He used scare tactics to make him seem more frightening and people were less likely to challenge him."

i dont think of charisma as genius....but that perhaps is just me. he had a way with words, but was that genius? he was able to get many people to go along with him on his crooked path, but was that genius, or just persuasion? (yes, i differentiate). as to how he took over germany, he used the technology of his time well (radio, flying in to give rallys), and he had some very weak and pathetic people running the govt of his nation.
as to the rest of europe--thats called people that knew how to create the tactics of blitzkrieg, and some of the finest soldiers in hitory. i dont give credit for that to hitler. in fact early in the war when the germans were winning, he left most things alone...the more he inserted himself into the command process, the more they started to lose.

vlad dracula (i used that name because that is what he called himself...not tepes...the impaler) had the royal blood to be able to use as a basis for his claim to the throne, and the hungarians putting him on the throne and either keeping him there, or removing him as they decided. he was quite a warrior, but....
i wont attempt to go against the genius proclaimation here as it seems to be a fait accompli, but i will say he treated his own people pretty horribly if the writtings of the time are correct.
the hitler thing tho....just have to agree to disagree on that one. ive studied the guy, and i think you can find a thousand hitlers in almost any good sized town. working class guy with a chip on his shoulder, a good voice, and a willingness to do whatever he needed. frankly if there was a genius that brought the nazis (national socialists) to power, it was goebbles, the propaganda minister.
~Wolf~

Wolf

'vlad dracula (i used that name because that is what he called himself...not tepes...the impaler)'

How do you kow that, that is what he called himself? I've been reading about him off and on for the past 3 years and have never ran into that before. Do you have a link?

Vlad? I thing Vlad was most definitely one of those insane geniuses, wich practiced efficiency and ruthlessness with pleasure.

Hmm it all depends how you see it, what would you do for what you believe in? what would you do for your life and your interests, in times like those? he took it to the fear factor as a weapon of defense and intimidation, so i would say a little bit of both, it all depends on your beliefs... a satanist wouldnt think the same as a christian in this subject. Atleast a christian would find this an insane ruler for sure.
A interesting documentary:
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000017513

Basically I think the guy was a whackjob. I know he was a prisoneer for like years. But impaling folks is just not nice.

Well at the end despite the method of terminating someone, may it be; shooting, slaying, impaling or whatever, is all the same in terms that they all hold all the same fate, “death”, I know it’s a more cruel and sadistic way of killing someone, but everyone fight their wars differently, and not everyone have the same ideals in terms of psychological warfare and beliefs, Christians have killed in the name of the God, when they swore in their beliefs by the confirmation phase to follow Gods commandments and teachings of his son Jesus Christ, I think they just broke two of them in one strike, in the Crusades; "thou shall not use God's name in vain", "thou shall not kill", a little contradicting your own beliefs don’t you think? to defend other interests of the time. I think it’s all in one's beliefs, the ways to do things in what is rightful for what you care about, in his case to free his people from Tyranny of neighboring countries and have a peaceful place for Romania, and he had to use FEAR factor as a weapon among other strategies.

Fighting for religious basis has always been round, Yet we cannot condone the death of otherts. Great leaders have always been or had these traits, yet now adays we say they are insane. yet in their time they were great warriors for their strategic minds.

Look at todays society with countries at war, do we deem them insane, or fighting for a cause?

I agree with cadrewolf What is deamed to be insane nowadays. Was once look at as heroism and that you were a great worrior and feard.But highly respected.
As for Vlad Tepes being genious or insane thats a matter of opinion to the person or society in wich it happend. In my personal opinion I agree with cadrewolf and that also looking at what is insane or revenge. And what drives a man to commit such acts was it personal?
was it heroism for his fellow man?Was it for freedom? we kill everyday with war are we any diffrent?
So inconclusion I he was and could of been both but he had his reasons.

NyghtSkye -


That might be classified as insane today, but you forget the world wasn't always as ... modern, as today. Things years ago that may have been right then are seen as wrong today.

I agree with the other posters, especially vvSoulshroudevv. They basically summed up the information for you. I believe he was a genius. People fear what they cannot understand, and believe in what they cannot see. I think Vlad was a genius, in the battlefield. Basically anyone who can make the history books is a genius. Just to be reported on is history, no matter how dark, absurd, or insane.

I think Vlad was a genius. Apparently, as far as I know, the way he grew up hints that at a young age he was bullied. So he knew how to bully others. How every little damage to your psychology can break a person. However, his position led to his insanity later on. He was always paranoid about being murdered. He never wanted to lose. And he let all his victories and the peace get to his head. He was very insecure on the inside, which made him be very controlling on the outside. However, he was a hero in Romania, and people still hope that he will come back.

he either signed his name Vlad or Dracula...that id documented and if you want a link, go find one. it shouldnt be difficult. there are also these cool things called "books" where they hide away information from people.
the impaler is not something one would want to call oneself...its like ivan the terrible or charles the great..those are either things that they are called post mortem or by other people.
~Wolf~

I conclude he was neither genius nor necessarily insane.
I am not dodging the question.
I am stating my sincere opinion based on the few facts
I know about the man.
“Either/Or” alternatives, especially when applied to
historical events or people, do not paint the whole picture
because there are usually several shades of grey
concerning who someone really was and what really happened.

Vlad lived in a brutal world during a brutal period of upheaval,
when societies and cultures that were still, respectively, in early stages of development clashed violently.

Vlad and his armies defeated enemies in battle who would have, had they prevailed, conquered, brutalized, and enslaved a nation whose land and people Vlad had a responsibility to defend. Vlad ordered several thousand of these defeated enemies impaled, en masse, in public view. Unquestionably brutal. But Insane?
The horror of this visual spectacle, which some historical reports suggest could be seen from miles away, must have served as a powerful warning to the would-be conquerors of Vlad and his people to evaluate whether an attempt at invasion and domination was even feasible and, if so, worth the risk of failure. Is there not an element of rational purpose, national interest, perhaps even sincere concern for protecting his people, underlying Vlad’s tactics and strategies?

ya he was ahead of his time if you ask me ...
he had to be given help by something that was not written down in history...

he was a man after all only human like us all...

men have been making other people gods and even more then they should have ever been given credit for...

should you seek after what was never true or should you seek after something that you can prove yourself was right.

I don`t know about genius, but certainly he was not mentally ill.
A mentally ill person would not be eligible on the Vallachian throne.

The persons who were mentally or physically ill should be designated as "Domn insemnat" ("Lord wearing a sign") and that would be sufficient for excluding him from the throne heirs list.

He reigned three times (1448, 1456-1462, 1474), so even if he would have got insane during one of the first reign he would not be helped to occupy the throne by the Hungarian King Mathias Corvinus with the help of his cousin and childhood friend Stefan cel Mare (Steven The Great).




Also must be known that he was not inventing terroras a state politic.All the great monarchies from Europe(including the Ottoman Empie were using it).

In about the same period and the same region were in circulation such stories about the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II, too.He was even identified with the Antichrist.

The research of the Medieval Law about that matter made by the Law Medievalist Radu Constantinescu shows that the punishments were the right punishments.The Saxon laws from Transilvania were very harsh at that time(and completely inhuman for our times) and Vlad was doing nothing but apply the laws.
(Radu Constantinescu, The Altenberger Codex, Bucharest 1988).

Besides, in 1480, the nobleman Neagul, great cauncelor ("mare vornic") of the voivod Basarab IV Tepelus wrote a letter in 1480 to the Saxon masters of Transilvania advising them not to oppose to his lord.

In the letter he wrote(this is my translation):
"Just remember, who begun to put people in stakes!Also the wanderer voivods and you who rised Dan among you.That`s why Vlad Voivod gone angry on you and made you enough damage, and started to put the people in stakes, and entered with fire against you.So remember that my words were never lies and will not be lies now, but I tell you the truth, think then - you don`t need much knowledge because you are very witty and too witty persons - and do fast what you have to do."

(the original text in romanian in: Ion Bogdan "Documente" editions Carol Gobl,1905, Bucharest, aslo quoted by Stefan Andreescu in English in Vlad The Impaler, The Romanian Cultural Foundation Publishing House, Bucharest, 1999)

alexa 910:

"He was always paranoid about being murdered."

Vlad was not paranoid about that!

His father Vlad II Dracul was assassinated and his brother Mircea was assassinated too.In great pain.I spare the details.His uncle, Bogdan II (The Father of Steven The Great Voivod of Moldova) was assassinated too.Vlad was at his court during the assassination and probably fled (together with little Steven) over the mountains to find shelter, in Transilvania to Iancu Huniade`s court.

There were really attempts directly against his life even before his second reign.Before 3 of July 1456, Paul Gereb and Nicolae of Ocna Sibiului (two noblemen from Sibiu) tried to catch and kill Vlad from the order of Vladislav II (at that time Vladislav II was ruling in Vallachia).

Vlad was not a fearful guy though.He was disquising himself in Turk (he spoke fluently Turkish) and was spying in person the Sultan`s army during the 1462 campain of the Ottomans in Vallachia. Also, disquised as a Turk officer he led the notorious Nighttime Attack from 16/17 June 1462, trying to kill the Sultan himself in his tent.

Ironically, Vlad died assassinated, despite his faithful guard of 200 Moldavian soldiers given by his cousin Steven the Great.

Usually Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I think you should read that before saying that he killed his own people.

On the contrary, he refused to give young boys to be transformed in Turk jannisaries.
That shows him as a person who cared about the life of his subjects and didn`t want to see 500 mothers cry for their boys.

Also in the wiki article explains that he killed only the Muslim Bulgars who were sympathizing with the enemy and oposed the Vallachian army to kill the Turk soldiers during the campaign in the south of Danube in 1461.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Attack


I must thank Imhotep for point of view that shows great wisdom and I assure him of all my appreciation and respect for the Muslim Religion.He is right: at that time the war couldn`t be avoided.
Indeed it appears that Mehmed II appreciated Vlad as a strong opponent and abandoned his attempt to conquer Targoviste, the Vallachian capital.

About the military genius of Vlad there is no doubt.
Also if we think about his external diplomacy there is no doubt that Vlad was not an insane person.

He was a military genious who loved his country and his people and tried everything to keep the turks out of his land.

Yet todays society with the cruelty of his torures we do call him barbaric or insane.

There is a thin line between genius and insanity.

If you look through out history,men and women that was considered genius,later fell into insanity.Vlad Tepes,Vlad the Impaler,Vlad Dracula wasn't insane but I doubt he was genius either.You have to realize how he grew up,his father was Vlad Dracul.One of the most loved and hated men of his time.He was 100 times more blood thirsty then Vlad Dracula ever was.Vlad Dracula or Vlad the 3rd was taken hostage for a time and he watched his captures and how they lived.

Revenge of his fathers death and older brothers made him blood hungry and he briefly took control of the throne.(Not from a website..from reading books over the years about him).he lived in a time when small villages and small countries fought over anything and everything.All he knew from birth was war and fighting.All he ever knew was killing and fighting to stay alive.I doubt he had a formal education or much sense other then war and killing.Like the saying goes *kill one and you're a murderer,kill millions and you're a conqueror*He killed for power and revenge...not just because he loved it or it scared people.

DarkWolfman:

I personally doubted he was a genius, but I can`t argue with one of his contemporary man, a man who lead an Empire and the conquered the Constantinople at 21 years old. The Turkish Sultan Mehmed II, his main enemy.

In the well known tale about the Vallachian hostage taken by the Turks and threatened to reveal the hiding place of Dracula, after the repeated refuse of the soldier, the Sultan said:
"with a little fear for his situation, that if this man(Vlad) would have a bigger army, he could of reach a great power in the world."

Also later, after seeing the 20 000 impaled soldiers 5 kilometers away from Targoviste (on a 3/1 kilometers square surface): "even the Emperor, amazed, kept saying that he can`t take the country from this man who can do such great things and, beyond the human nature, he could use this way his power and his subjects.He also said that this man who did such things deserved to do more."
(Laonikos Chalkokondyles(aprox 1423 - aprox 1474) in his book "Historiarum Demonstrationes")
Let`s not forget that Murad himself was a very very cruel person, even for his time.



"All he knew from birth was war and fighting."

I sincerily doubt that Vlad was a military men only!
Don`t forget that he tried to reform the commerce and that was not an easy thing for those days.Besides he didn`t rise only fortresses but also churches.Many churches during his short reign. Also he imported books and he wished to spread the printing in his country(at that time was a very modern technology).
Of course his cultural realization are in the shadow of his cruel deeds.After all it`s more spectacular, isn`t it?



"I doubt he had a formal education or much sense other then war and killing"you say?

I doubt that affirmation too:
Vlad stayed at the sultan`s court and until his Father imprisonment was well educated.The sultan educated the kids of the Balkanian kings and rulers that he had in his possession in the Serai (his palace).
He learned there not only tactics and diplomacy but also the habits from the court and poetry that was at high price at the Sultan`s court.Maybe that`s where his dark humor is originated.
I only know Romanian and a little English and French.
He was speaking fluently Romanian, Turkish, German and Hungarian.Also he intensively studied Latin, Slavonic and Ancient Greek.

Back at his father court he had as a teacher a Greek originated old nobleman who was a Turkish slave for a time and also served as a Turkish ambassador in Italy for many years.I sincerely doubt that fighting was his only skill.

We certainly deal with a brilliant man, who had a very strong personality and was capable to oppose a huge Empire and did it in a violent manner, unlike his brother Radu the Handsome.





All this things plead for his genius but of course it depends what do you want to understand by that term.If he was a genius he was very different from Mozart.
;)
That he was cruel it`s a fact, but lets go beyond the Saxon press campaign and see who started it and what were his motives and above all as a friend of mine said how much is truth and how much is lie.

Thank you for sharing your opinions on what I had to say.I'm sure you feel great about yourself.

I wrote from what I vaguely remember reading from a book years ago.I didn't have to look it up on the net.I stated what I thought about the subject and not have to state each and everything someone else may or may not have right.

I have read in books as much about him as anyone and I have also read so many other topics of everything I find fascinating.I don't have to justify 100% fact on him.

Vlad was sadistic in my opinion and did massacre 1000's of people.He may have had an education as you so boldly stated but he was far from genius.speaking more then one language doesn't make anyone smarter then anyone else.I'm sure if you lived around people who spoke another language you would pick it up at some point.

I have to say that I would consider the man insane. When he found out what had happened to his brother, being buried alive and his father it would not be surprising after being kept captive. He got even in the end, but he was imprisoned or in exhile more than he was on the throne. I have an article in my journal on Vlad that I wrote debunking a lot of urban legend about him including some in his supposedly descended family who are now parroting back all the bs. He spoke Romanian and other languages but when you go through his family tree in certain places they don't know the descent. He got the Dracula title (son of) when his father changed his name at the time he was brought into the Order of the Dragon (about 21 years after it was established. Neither of them helped form this group.). They didn't have the Dracul title for centuries, lol. They didn't even want to invite Vlad's father into the order because he was illegitimate even though many in the courts in that time were out of wedlock. They weren't well respected because they were not "pure blood" but he had many soldiers and he was a good fighter so they thought he could help them get rid of the Turks. This was the only reason either of them ever got into the order. There are a number of scenarios on how he died and one is he dressed up like a Turk but got curious and went on a hill to look at the fighting and his own men killed him. There are a couple of others. Whether truth or legend, they say when he was in prison he would torture anything he could catch and impale them. I think he was a little depraved, whether looked upon as a hero in modern times among those now in the same area. As far as dipping his bread in the blood, in all actuality they really don't know if he did that and some say he had his servants dip the bread for him. The Scythians would do such things similar and he was from the same area so he may have gone that direction symbolically to try and make a point. No one really knows where legends that have been built up around the man and truth begin but as a child he was probably traumatized due to the Turkish brutality and what he endured. That can cause people to do all sorts of things.

DarkWolfman:
I apologize if I hurt your feelings.I assure you it was not in my intent. I was only "in battle" with your statements not with you personally.I assure you of all my respect!
Also I didn`t wanted to display my knowledge.My intent is to present data and to keep a skeptical point of view on his madness.
I could be the Devil`s advocate if you want to say so.

Azure:
However Dracula was not a title but a nickname, and it`s not sure it comes from the order.
Rezachevici proposes the origin from the Romanian word

drag=eng. dear

because the form in his contemporary papers was Dragulie not Dracula.He speaks about his father naming him Dragul Voevod.

He was not pure blood but for certain he was a recognized prince, the same as any other son of Mircea.In the medieval Vallachian society every son or descendant of a Voivod has the right to reign. There was equality of chances we could say.
Besides the fact that he was included in the Order because of his bravery and not only because of his blue blood is not a shame.
The order was forgotten when it`s founder king Sigismund died.

There is no testimony that Vlad drunk the blood or any other kind of dripping his bread in blood, despite the MacNally`s claiming.If you find such a thing please notice me.

Also I must say:
Vlad was not breaking any law!On the contrary he was a law enforcer.He didn`t killed without a reason or without a trial.He applied the laws of the one he judged and made no difference of fortune or kin.The horror he spread during his time was because of the number of his victims, not because of the punishment itself,and sometime this number was greatly exaggerated.

I understand your sentiments because you are from where he was born which was occupied by the Hungarians at the time. They also claim Vlad. I have observed an argument between a Romanian and Hungarian over this point. True he spoke Romanian and possibly was descended from the Roman soldiers that were in Transylvania for around 165 years or his family line was influenced by the language of the troops. There are two schools on that and I don't want to go into all of that. There was no country called Romania at that time. Wallachia and others joined almost in the 20th Century to create a country called Romania and Transylvania was added around 1919 or so. Therefore I looked at his family tree and it looked sort of sketchy when you went up the line. He did speak Romanian and I guess it is ok for the modern country to claim him but let's face it, the information is bias no matter who writes about him. There is no real connection to the book Dracula except minor...all of that is mostly urban legend. Not going into all of that but I have written about it.

Here is an excerpt from a debate of people, some of which were Romanian or others who spoke Romanian and one pointed out that what something meant technically in Vlads time isn't the same in all words now and how they are applied. Here is an excerpt of the debate.

Sometimes he signed his name as Dracula, and sometimes as Draculea. The -lea suffix that ends in names stands for "al lui", meaning, "as of", meaning, the son of -- the son of Dracul.

There has to be an expert study on the etymology of his romanian "nickname" Draculea, i believe Dracula comes from Draculea. i read Draculesti was a name for the family 'clan', similar to other Dragnea, Dragan, Dragoi, Dragulescu (plural: Dragulesti) family names that are found today in Romania.

From a Romanian:
In fact Draculea in the medieval Romanian meant indeed "son of...Dracu". It was a pure coincidence that the order name his father was decorated with was "The order of the dragon" and it matched so well the character of the prince, the Romanian pronounciation for devil (dracu) and for the order. The popular pronounciation of the word dragon was also "dracu": the process of switching from an unknown word (in Romanian) to a known one is quite common even today. I heard many peasants in Romania pronouncing "Harciog" instead of Hrusciov in recent times!! The closest Romanian word to "dragon" was obviously "dracu". There is no controversy here between historians that initially the meaning of this name was the order of the dragon. No prince in his minds would have called himself the Devil!!

Someone asked about official papers existing with his signature:

I know there are some, but I don't know where. I know that there is at least one, I think it deeded some land to some peasants. He signed his name Vlad Dracula.

Signed letters exist in Brasov, where I have seen and photographed them. The signature is a formal drawing, and not recognizable for its particular spelling, but for its design.

This is from the book, "Dracula, prince of many faces".

"Vlad was called, 'Dracul' by the boyars, who knew of his honor, because he was a draconist, a member of the order of the dragon dedicated to fighting Turks and heretics".

He signed letters with the title Dracula, and it was in no way meant to be negative. The idea that the title meant Devil could not be further from the truth. Also, from what I've read he was quite popular with the peasants. His cruelest acts were directed against wealthy people who could threaten his power, not against peasants.

-------------------------------------

If you want to say that he was not insane because in the end he helped the area which was not Romania because it didn't exist then, that is fine and no offence meant. He is an historical person who did a lot of harsh things but there is a whole lot of evidence that he was not in his right mind. As to whether he dipped his bread in blood or had someone do that it would not be an uncommon thing for the time period and not a sign of a depraved person but a gesture of taking on the power and most likely getting the well deserved revenge for the merciless killing of his brother and father. Whether he did that or didn't I don't think it should be looked upon as something brutal in this case because he was well deserved in his feelings for these people in my opinion. As far as a Prince, I got the lecture about Crown Prince and all from another Romanian, lol. I am not saying he had no right to the throne but his father was illegitimate and it was pointed out that he was not going to be asked into the order but was because they thought he would help with getting the Turks out. Nothing was mentioned about right to the throne by me or them. Vlad Tepes would have only been a baby. Most aren't sure when he was born but it was around that time. All of these details are really trivia because just about every writing I have ever read paints him as pretty ruthless and not quite of the right mind. He is dead so some wish to remember him kindly and that's fine.

My dear friend Azure,

I am just trying to put some light on his life, and my feelings for that come as a conclusion of my readings , not as a cause of them.I presented you documented facts.You`re the one who`s not mentioning the sources!
If you say you photographed the document why don`t you show it to us!I am very eager to see a letter of Vlad that`s now in Brasov, I assure you.

I`m sorry that you didn`t heard about the debate around Dracula`s name.
Professor Constantin Rezachevici is chief researcher at the Nicolae Iorga National Institute of History, a member of the Romanian Academy, and Professor with the Faculty of History at the University of Bucharest. He is author of The History of the Neighbouring Countries and the Romanian People in the Middle Ages (1998).
I added the article about that to the database.As soon as it will be approved by the Procurator I`ll post the link here.

Also I`ll have to ask you not to take the information from the quarrel of some nationalist quarrels between Hungarian and Romanian people.
I was born there and I know that the fighting (which is not a metaphor) of Hungarians to reconstruct their empire is not a nice thing.They fight with Czechs, Serbians and even Austrians for that, but an empire is an empire: a way to enslave other populations.

You are right.In the XV century Romania was not on the map!Dindn`t existed.
However all the Vallachians from Vallachia, Transivania and Moldavia made it in the XIX century.They were the majority of population then and now!
After all United States was never named India, even if the white people called the Native Americans like that.

Our country is not whole now either: just look at the events from Republic Moldavia in these days!

Hey I got far from the subject..Please read more about these places history.If you want my help my humble knowledge is at your disposal.It brings much joy to me when somebody wants to know the thruth, just like I do and maybe we will discover some more things together.
I assure you that I base my opinions, (not only my feelings) on research not on what I`m told me to believe.

We all have a complicated mind and behavior (just look at this site - you`ll see a big diversity) but I think we have to think twice and read very carefully the testimonies of those times to declare someone that lived a few centuries ago insane or not.
And then doubt that declaration again.

Hun, you didn't read all of what I said carefully. I have done research and I am sorry you feel this way. I cannot read Romanian and I have to say that I find much of what people from that area say in conflict that I have either had conversation with or was able to read a translation. You have those who hate tourists coming in and others who exploit them concerning Vlad. I said that this was a debate between Romanians and others about Vlad and his name. I will privately send you the info. I am neither stupid nor undereducated and I understand this man may have done an extensive research BUT it doesn't mean he is right. Others have written things and come up with other conclusions. I don't know what it has to do with the US and Native Americans. I am just saying the facts are that others claim him to be their Hero whether they are in conflict with people now or in the past has nothing to do with the topic because you don't like them or the country or they committed this crime or that crime.

Others have noticed this fact as well about Romania and some feel they are trying to change the history whether a right conclusion or not. Whether this detail or that detail is correct to the last point is not relevant nor is the Native American addition. I am not trying to say Romania is a bad country in any way and did not say that. The other thing was a long time ago and there is no real American in the sense of a racial group. It was people from all over Europe and the British Isles and the Norse who settled here and did these things. The government has treaties and most people here stand up on the side of the Native American but they are not really indigenous to this land either but were here prior to the white man. Most of my family have only been here a few generations. It still doesn't change the fact that from most sources I have read that are available to the average person that Vlad was not in his right mind and was extremely brutal.

My last reponse and we can talk privately because I would never want to hurt you feelings or you to feel I am trying to give a bad name to Romania. This was the question, do I think he was a genious or insane. I know he was a good strategist and he was well trained as a warrior and skilled but that still doesn't mean he was rational about his procedures with captives and others he had grievances with. I feel and still do with all things considered and what he went through that he was not in his right mind. Sorry to be redundant. We can talk out of the forum because I see you are upset and are not following some of what I am saying. You can give me other sources too that I can read in English if you have more than just one person I would be willing to add this all to things I have written to change viewpoints. I am seeing them come from Romanians so what can I say because what I posted did come from some Romanians and it was kept but scratched from general publishing because it got heated. Just as you appear to be getting. So we can talk privately now because all this other stuff is actually off topic.

No you didn't "hurt"my feelings,but you insulted my intelligence.

Oh god...Anyways. To say Vlad or Hittler were insane is to say Christianity is insane as well, along with every individual that kills for their interest. If that's so then our goverment system is insane, along with all the supporters of the system the voters, which makes most of us insane to. It takes virtue to control a multitude and astucity to persist in power, things very far from insanity. But I could say emotional pain could be playing in the character more than anything.

Didn't Radu 'the handsome' have a part in betraying Dracula as well? (please don't chew me out if I am wrong) If Dracula was paranoid, I think he had every right to be!

I believe the crimes were indeed harsh, but if you seen some of the torture devices out there during that time, that wasn't that much of a far cry... On the other hand I have read that a golden chalice was placed in the town center and no one stole it or disturbed it in any way.. So in that way I do believe Vlad Dracula son of Vlad Dracul was quite brilliant to have brought peace to his people for a time...

Sometimes you do what you have to do and what you think is right...

(please realize this was just my 2 cents, and don't need it to be analyzed or spoken ill of...)

Hey, it`s a friendly fight here!NO casualties.
;))
Azure and DarkWolfman please don`t take it personally.I assure you I didn`t: after all, Vlad is not my relative.
:P
I just try to find out how this person`s mind worked, because his life is even more interesting then the novel.

Also I didn`t said Rezachevici is right.I only said it`s a debate about that, that he`s a historian and it`s interesting to know about the debate.

Just as Ravenous and Mystical, I ask myself if he had reasons (first) and if the reasons are good or bad.
It`s easy to say somebody did that and that and that, but surprisingly, the Saxon "newspapers" don`t mention any of his reasons for doing that.Conclusion of the Viennese guys from 1463 after reading the article: Vlad surely was mad to do that!

I already shown that the accusers of Vlad used THE SAME TORTURING and killing METHODS!And that THEY started to use them first, against Vlad`s men.
Their motives?Financial gain?
Vlad`s motives?I`ll let you answer to that.

When you judge someone you don`t consider him guilty from the start.


As about Radu, yes, he betrayed his brother.He was defeated in every fight by Vlad, but he still won the war because he promised to the nobleman that he will reign without impaling and will rule having the support of the Sultan.The winter was coming, so Vlad should abandon his peasants to their homes.
Radu the Handsome was the lover and favorite of the Sultan!... after he was sexually abused by the Sultan in his childhood.There is a chronicle about that!In facts two different chronicles.No doubts there.

Radu payed the tribute: 100 000 gold pieces, horses, products and 500 little boys to be made Turk warriors.But he reigned without impaling anyone.I mean he didn`t impaled any thieves.Which one would you choose if you`d be a Vallachian nobleman?



If someone breaks in to your apartment and tries to put you or your kids in chains and you kill him you`re a killer?You`re insane?

If you win the war outnumbered AT LEAST 3 to 1 (without counting other military technological advantages of the XV century Turkish warmachine), you`re a genious?

I`m not giving you answers. Just present the facts.You can verify and have your own answers.

thats a really tough call and a lot of people will argue this, but id have to say he was genious. he knew exactly what he had to do to make his enemies fear him. and he did just that, by ay means neccicary.

Was Vlad any different than the leaders that preceeded him or followed. Ghangis Kahn or even military leaders of today. Acts of war to protect his home and people at any means.

What we consider barbaric now at their times was acts to scare and drive enemies away, cruel mind games is all, get in the head of the enemy so when you face them the thoughts of the stake or what ever plays on their mind making them let their guard down.

True, CW.
Plus, Vlad lacked the benefit of a good public relations firm.

Fight Fight Fight! hells to the yeah, fuck to the no!
ok lol but seriously wars are wars, there will always be good people to one side and bad people to the other all looking for what in their beliefs is right for them. So who is right and who is wrong? no one.. everyone believe in different things and they defend what they think is good for them. Thats what happened in the Crusades, both parties fighting for the same interest with different beliefs. No body is wrong but in their views the opposite one is the heretic,evil or wrong, and it will keep like that to the end of human times..as long as we all find something that the whole world believe in which that option is looking quite bad hehe..

I think that he did what he had to do to protect his country. what Vlad did was nothing compared to Moses when he left Egypt and the 40 years that he prepared his people for war.

Quite an interesting point of view Azriel!

I can say the same about his cousin, Stephen the Great: after Vlad`s death he conquered Vallachia from Vlad`s killer and he impaled no less then 11 000 people (Vallachians and Turks) but this didn`t stopped the head of the Orthodox Romanian church to declare him a Saint!

I guess Toth is Right!
lol
He is today the Devil and his cousin Steven is the Saint.
Vlad was judging the enemies after their own rules and Steven didn`t even judged them (as the chronicle says).
I say History is pretty odd.


One more thing:
It appears that until the conflict with the Saxons, Vlad was not using the impalement.The Turks were not using this punishment either, but learn it from Vlad during the Sultan`s campaign against him (remember the stake wood of 20 000?).[Soon I`ll post in the database the article about that.]

So basically, Vlad learned the punishment applying the Saxon`s laws against them (and don` forget that they started to impale his men first). He was certainly a cruel guy (because he found it very useful), but he was not alone there!He just increased the number of impalements for being sure that nobody crosses his lands... and the lands as his "poor ones" as he calls his subjects!


Besides let`s be in-humaly logical: if he didn`t killed the Turkish soldiers the should feed them in jail or return them to the Sultan.

1. Feed them? No wAY!They were the same of the entire estimated population able to work in Vallachia at that time.This would of been quite impossible.That was impossible to guard so much men either.

2.return them to the Sultan?
LOL Maybe he was mad, as some say, but not mad enough to do that!!In the next year, the Sultan came with the biggest army from the Conquering of Constantinople against him!Why he should add 20 000 Turkish soldiers to that?


My conclusion?

He killed the soldiers in Bulgaria or/and in Vallachia in fair battle.He piled the heads and cut the tongues to send them to Corvin as proof as his loyalty.
He took the bodies and impaled them in various position to scary the attackers of his country.
NOTE that they were the attackers, not him!The good boys are the ones who protect their homes, not the ones who attack to steal other`s profit!
:P


In my book, even if he was a cruel ruler, he applied that thing for protecting his people... if that saves him or absolves him in every way, it`s a for everyone to say.

Wow some great postings there people Personal opinion only No links or books to back it up The guy was a product of his times and used his Knowledge of warcraft and his Neighbours proclivities to try and defend his land and his people from the Turks (and others) Genius maybe moot point really evil depends do we judge him from our perspective or from the perspective of the times and practices? In his time He was considered by some a bloody butcher by others a National hero. Then as now the arguments remain the same, Genius or Evil Bastard? Bit of both. Again only my opinion Folks and not wanting to ruffle the feathers of more knowledgeable brethren out there in V.R. Again my thanks for an enlightening discussion as a lot of this I did not know about the man.

Genious OR insane? Why not both?

True, yet perception on a figure from long past, we can asume that both traits fit him or others, yet speculation was he believed in his cause and did anything to achieve it.

I know that there are numerous different opinions about Vlad but the least popular and most factual is that as a ruler he was actually a hero to his people. Forget the legends or even the novel that Bram Stoker had written- the vampiric elements were based after Bathory anyhow. I suggest the movie Dark Prince- The Story of the Historical Dracula, I'm not personally sure of how accurate it is but I'd heard from those in the Tepes bloodline that it's very close.

brace yourself this may seem lame, but in all honesty what we think one way or the other hardly matters. what matters is fact. What are the facts of what he did, why he did it and the outcome? From my understanding he used the quickest method he could think of to end a conflict. In that way he would have been a genius. The dipping of the bread in the blood, ok in my humble opinion that just makes him nutz.. see lame

You have to judge a man by the mores of thier time.
Vlad was probably very similar to abraham lincoln, a troubled man doing the best he could for his country. All manner of myths about his greatness or evils depend on which side you were on. In reality they are just leaders living in interesting times, trying to keep thier countries from falling apart.

The ends justifying the means is inversely proportional to the achieving of your goals. To use terrorism in a fight that you are losing is not unjustified. To use it in a fight that you are winning is not. Cough*nagasaki*cough*

Kglitterous


Well stated, but looking on facts we must assume that Vlad Was a genious in his time period and the war for his country and people were in fact a good cause.

We look at out time and call it barbaric, yet mind games and a edge in war has been documented with many great leaders of their time.

DT I thing you`re talking about Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula.Here in this wiki page are some Historical inaccuracies/errors who place the movie more in the category of fantasy movie then in the category of historical movie.
And they are only a few.
A lovely fantasy movie but just a fantasy!
The thread is about the real character.

Knight G. that is a very interesting point of view.

Vlad the implaer was true fact, a figure in history battling for his lands and his people. I have seen the movie in question read the books and similarities on all lines.yet perception of the artist, not many scripts were left from his times for some unknown reason. wheter his time or Mica the greats. speculation of all realms of history.

Why must we presume all that where leaders in history were insane to achieve such historic value. becuase of methods deemed ok in their time and not ours. we still use methods many think cruel yet for a good cuase, freedom and our home lands.

Monday, 11 may 2009

I will open the DRAGON ORDER on the Coven of Forbidden Fruit pages.
It serves at researching the life of Vlad.
I invite you to visit it and it`s links to articles that are not so known or even remained unknown for the Anglo-Saxon speaking word.
I will try to add there the articles about him written by historians, but also the translated texts of the chronicles published about Vlad during his time.
I will also try to translate original diplomatic letters written by Vlad that will put him in a new light.

You will also find there old portaits of Vlad and pictures of coins and of places where he lived.

Would like to see these, or the translations, many things are not well published or given. so thats why there is so much confusion of past people.

Vlad the Impaler, was a genious, a ruler that had to face much larger forces, the only way to beat them was psychologically, putting fear in their minds, hence the impaling of his enemies, and leaving them impaled, the tales of him grew and for each head he impaled it was like having 100 more soldires

Find a book called In Search of Dracula by Raymond T. McNally and Radu Florescu, 1972 published by Galahad Books- a good bit of the book is devoted to the historical dracula, Vlad Tepes

I have put an announce about a page dedicated to Vlad on our Coven on My Mascara is Running section of the forum.
It will be a trustworthy source to have information about Vlad.

You can find it here:

https://www.vampirerave.com/forum/message.php?message=40598&group=1&catid=2



The book written by McNally and Florescu is among the few books about Dracula you can trust written in English but it`s been based on the studies made by the Romanian historians since.Unfortunately they are published in French and Romanian but not in English.

Kglitterous made a comment about terrorism and nagasaki. sorry kglitterous but i think thats a silly comparison. first...it was a full blown war and needed to END. if operation olympic had occured (the invasion of the japanese home islands) over a million allies were projected to be casualites, and the gods alone how many japanese would have died.

that said,
someone also asked where i got the info about vlad calling himself vlad dracula.
well, there are 3 surviving documents with his signature on it where all he signed was "dracula".
when you recall that his father was called vlad dracul, dracula (son of dracul) makes perfect sense.
~W~

Not to sound like a pleaser however I think he used madness to become part of his genius he did what he did to protect his people and please don't leave out the fact that he was heavily christian and seen as a hero in his country.

I cannot ration why the word insane would even speculate his trials in life to protect home and country. Would we do this with any other leaders of the world past or present.

he was seen as a hero...as long as you werent of the boyar class.

he was heavily christian...but so was torquemada.


insanity...having a light lunch in the shade of the rotting bodies strikes me as a bit odd...but it is hard to judge a person from another era. still...the smell of rotting person is generally considered to be unpleasant.

just my thoughts
~W~

About Dracula provenience or significance is still a shadow.
If a single historian thinks the truth must be different we still have to hear him speaking.
It`s lovely that the mystery it`s still present here.
If you have any information about those letters I would be glad to hear about them or about the source you have them.
I`m terrible interested in the subject.
I am not a partisan of an hypothesis or another.I just want o know more about him.After all is one of the most famous men in history and not because of what he made.About that nobody knows too much.
It`s funny don`t you think?

The man was not a hero for the boyars?Maybe that`s right, but not for all the boyars.
Some of the boyars were loyal to him.Until he was taken in captivity.
Matei Cazacu made an interesting study saying that the numbers are much exaggerated in the German and Byzantine stories about the slaughter made on the Easter.
Cazacu searched in the list of the boyars from the high council and demonstrated that the great boyars from the council remained unchanged excepting some of them.So no major slaughter there.Cazacu consider reasonable that only 50 were killed instead 500 as Chalkokondylos said.

In the middle ages after a battle all the leaders dinned on the battlefield, that doesn`t mean that they like the smell of the dead.
I don`t know about Vlad.
Surely he had a dark humor and a very pragmatic view over the events though.

Torquemada didn`t rise a church on the place of his decapitated victim Vladislav II.Dracula did after two years.And the church bear the name Saint John the Baptist.
Only a coincidence?
Also allow me to ask you if after battle you consider the smell of death so unbearable that you can`t eat?
Let`s not think at the facts, let`s think at the conditions too.

I`m sorry I have to be the devil`s advocate again.
He he and what a devil!Dracula himself.
I`m just a dragon after all, my friend Lord Wolf.
*elegantly bows in front of the noble minstrel*

Vlad was a insane guy indeed. I mean what san person puts people on pikes.. So i say insane and maybe he could have had some mental proble and nobody knew it.

He was a man that did what he had too to protect his land and his people. Was not insane in my opinion, just ruthless to do what ever it took to scare his enemies before battle.

Undervampsgaze -


He may be considered insane by our standards today, but what you forget or don't realize is that the time of Vlad Dracula was not the modern age.

Are the executions that go on today to the criminals insane? No. Like with those, he put to death those who would hurt his society and it's way of life.

but his personal reaction...
todays executions are fast...painless

but he reveled in the pain of those he had killed.
its his emotional reaction that makes me consider him not quite stable.
~W~

Not necessarily. The injection can be painful and slow if doesn't move through the veins.

When they used to hang people, they suffocated until death, not to mention they suffered their neck breaking which more than likely didn't result in a quick death.

Electrocution, again not necessarily quick or painless.

Okay maybe your right. today we may view that as insane but back then maybe it was common.

Genius since he was in the right place at the right time and most likely had a really good historian near by or under him as well as some damn good minstrels and storytellers. As the idea goes history is written by the victors.

Mardivan

Well, I dont mean to be cliche, but I think he was both. He was genius in his use of psychology to scare the living bejesus out of his enemies. Yet he was also good enough in battle to defeat them physically alone if he had too. I think it was the combination of being a great warrior and the use of psychology that made him so great. And a little craziness or pyschosis thrown in the mix never hurts!!

Madness may have had some point in his work, but Vlad had realized that to concour the enemy he must get to them, he realized their barbarian way of prisoners of beheading them so he wanted to out do them.

Staking people along the borders or infront of his castle, they had to ride through it on their way to battle, and many religious or not would not want this to happen to them. scare tatics.

Today we look at it as insane, yet phscological war fare is still going on today in many countries across our great world.

There is a type of different insanity to each genius.. Vlad the Impaler was steriotyped as insane because of the massive murder spree as they called it.. But he was a true genius in the way he did it, and the message that was led along with it.. Which had a strong meaning of power and knowledge..

Everyone knows that Vlad was the best warrior in his land and a well defender. To me this is my theory... And I would find this funny. He impales his victims to try and scare the turkish armies away, by making a long path of impaled turkish warriors, I would find this funny because I think the terms "Would do ANYTHING for his people" would be taken seriously... You probably wouldn't think it's funny, and I understand.

I agree with you, DarkAngelsCurse. The degree of genius is usually gauged by the level of insanity. How else can one think outside the box? In this case, Vlad took the horrors of the battlefield and brought it a step closer to madness by desecrating bodies.

I believe imagesinwords hit the nail on the head. He was just a man and he did what he felt needed to be done.

I prefer to look at what he did as opposed to trying to figure out his state of mind at the time.

I do believe that the only entitled people to talk the truth, if you will, about Vlad Ţepeş are the romanian historians and the romanian people. Because even in their opinions you will see some contradictions and disputes but, at least you will see people speaking from the heart and not trying to hide.
As a romanian, I can tell you that I am torn a little bit... why? Because even if I admire the things Vlad Ţepeş did for Vallachian (future known as Ţara Românească), some of his methods were not quite... orthodox.
In my opinion, the man was a genius and a little bit insane (often, the two are related - psychology confirms that). He knew how to spread fear among his enemies and also among the people who served him, he was a fierce ruler and didn't want any "help" from the landlords (who got him killed) but he also used to sit alone in a dark hallway, having his dinner surrounded by the bodies of his enemies and drinking red wine (thus creating the premises for the "blood drinking").
The fact is the man was real and, in present days, we could use someone like him...

This thread has been automatically closed for length.